Examine the Chandra Levy case strictly from an investigative point of view. From the published evidence, conclude if Ingmar Guandique or Gary Condit were responsible for her death or not. Review and discuss the facts of the case, the procedures that were followed, and most importantly, what went wrong.
Focus your response around the common question asked under those options: what went wrong in that case? In other words, select the case that you intent to use for your paper 1, review the facts of the case from the investigative perspective (from the available published information that you can find online), and then analyze the case to determine the investigative failures associated with it.
In your main discussion post, discuss five elements from the list below that may have led to the failed investigation:
Confirmation bias
Tunnel vision
Organizational problems (e.g., lack of proper supervision and management – or noble-cause corruption type of issues)
Evidence collection failure
Evidence analysis/logic failure
Careless/incompetent investigation/investigators
Problematic witnesses (e.g., unreliable) or confession
Procedure/law problems
Flawed forensics
Alternative suspects not investigated
Premature shift to suspect-based investigation
Rush to judgment
Police failed to maintain the chain of custody of the evidence
Make sure to cite references for the information that you present. This is an academic analysis of the problems associated with the investigative failures related to the case that you select for this assignment.
 
 
The post Chandra Levy case strictly from an investigative point of view appeared first on homework handlers.

What if your county’s jail is overcrowded and building conditions are deteriorating? Despite budget cuts, you must propose plans for the jail’s future at the next community meeting. What do you say and why. Be specific. Sample Solution